click to show more information

click to hide/show information About your Search

20110701
20110731
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5
and pakistan leads our overall policy efforts and we are supporting his efforts, ambassador grossman's efforts, to develop all of the different elements of our policies. >> tried to get him here but couldn't. >> okay. so, in other words, you aren't in a position really to answer my question? is that what you're saying? >> yes, senator. i would defer to the special representatives office. >> then would you since the question is to you would you get me a written answer to the question? >> i will, sir. >> thank you. mr. harrigan, what are dea's plans for continued operations should military forces draw down to levels that would not allow adequate support for your operations? >> well, again, co-chairman grassley, i have been in discussions really for the last 18 months with my counter part at the podium here, mr. wechsler, as well as our regional director in afghanistan with the u.s. military and si isaf forces. dea has no intention of drawing down any of our 81 personnel. it would be a bit premature to see right now how the drawdown will impact dea but let me assure you we continue to work with t
and pakistan. with the help of pakistan. so i think that sometimes we just go from one end of greek allies, great friends which is what was your longtime, in the previous administration, two gosh, these guys are no good, et cetera. this is not the way to do business between two allies and partners. and i think we will not interpret the remarks as a letter. we understand them to be a reflection of american statement of policy, and the americans have the right to defend their homeland by ensuring that terrorists are plotting against the american homeland are dealt with. but as far as the other concern, we are very confident of our sovereignty. we would like to protect our sovereignty. and sovereignty requires that when operations take place in pakistan they should take place without knowledge and our participation. >> a quick follow. does that mean if there's a second rate, that your forces would fire on the rich? >> when i became ambassador to the united states, i went and saw very good colleague of mine, another professor of international, and i said i've been ambassador before but that wa
that as al qaeda leadership in pakistan comes under pressure, that it is not able to be defined as a safe haven in somalia. since the fall of the mass -- the last national government in 1991, somaliland both the autonomous areas of somalia, have been the only areas with effective governance. somali man seeks international recognition while it truly does not. the question of whether the united states and international committee for the recognizing somaliland or support it integration into greater somalia at some future point requires ongoing an examination and discussion. consequently, today's hearing offers a viable opportunity to examine u.s. policy on a variety of issues involving somali. now i return to ranking member, mr. payne, for comments he might have. >> thank you very much. i would like to thank you and mr. royce for calling this very important joint hearing on assessing the consequences of the failed state of somalia. and it's a pleasure to see my good friend, mr. royce, acting chair the african subcommittee at some point in the past and has maintained a strong interest as has
interests or an authorization debate in the congress. given all that is at stake in pakistan, afghanistan, iran, saudi arabia, egypt, syria, yemen and elsewhere in the islamic world, a rational strategic assessment would not devote sizable american military and economic resources to a civil war in libya. it is an expensive diversion that leaves the united states and our european allies with fewer assets to respond to other contingencies. under the constitution, it is our responseability to determine whether we should be a party to libya's civil war. as a part of this process we will consider the terms and scope of the joint resolution before us today. i'm concerned this resolution would provide broad authorities, permitting significant expansion of the united states military involvement in libya's civil war. the resolution would authorize the president to reescalate united states military involvement in libya, to and potentially beyond the lead role it played at the beginning of the operation when the united states carried out intensive airstrikes on a daily basis. the resolution would on
to pakistan? and afghanistan? why send all of that money over there? get our troops out of all of these other countries that we need them in. germany and philippines and all of the other places anymore. >> host: here's leslie -- excuse me, tammy in leslie, kentucky. >> caller: yes, they need to bring our troops home and stop spending the millions of billions. they need to help out the people on social security. it's hard to make it especially when you have a family. >> host: florida, linda on the independent line. where do things stand with the debt and deficit negotiations? >> caller: i think personally it's all bull crap. you've got people that is -- has been on the social security because they are either disabled or whatever. bring our troops home. we don't need to support pakistan. look what they did to us, we don't need to support iran. bring us home. get us out of that situation. we have people out here that fought for the country. now they are going to suffer because he wants to cut back the social security, medicare, and medicaid? that's nuts. i think just bring our people home. start
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5